Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 26, 2012 9:00pm-9:30pm EDT

9:00 pm
penalties and arizona law for noncompliance. it is only these simple and clear law enforcement measures that are before the supreme court. this common sense law is fully within the authority of arizona as it protects citizens for effects of illegal immigration and upholds the rule of law and protecting our citizens is the highest duty of any public official. thank you. god bless. may god continue to bless this republic. >> thank you mr. pearce. next, we'll go to senator deconcini. >> mr. chairman, senator durbin. i want to thank you very much for an opportunity to address this very important issue. not only to my home state of arizona but to our nation. the constitutionality and prudence of federal immigration and enforcement laws by state and local governments is indeed a complex issue. mr. chairman, i'm a native arizona resident, i grew up in that state, i came from neighborhoods and business and
9:01 pm
law practice with multitude of hispanic and mexican friends, investors, what have you. we worked together, we shared each otherness heritage and experience. the culture of our state reflects the rich history of the latino influence. but during the last two years, mr. chairman, we have unduly harmed our legal latino residents in this process. the solution of the problems coming into this country illegally. we have let rhetoric and political advantage cloud this sound judgment. mr. chairman, this hearing is partly about 1070 and mostly seeing that the supreme court will address it tomorrow. i believe it's ill-founded, mean-spirited, divisive. in addition it requires state and local law enforcement to carry out immigration responsibilities that lie with the federal government clearly. prior to being elected in the
9:02 pm
united states senate in 1976 as the chairman pointed out, i was a pima county attorney. i was appointed by governor raul castro to head up the arizona drug control district because of the tremendous problem we had along our border. this creation of this drug controlled district did not create laws that contradicted federal responsibility. it was a cooperative effort, put together by the legislature, republican legislature to address the problem, in accordance with the cooperation of the federal agencies and we did just that. i mentioned this because there is some similarity, but laws need to be in cooperation and not hostile to each other. when i came to the senate, i was appointed to this august committee, the judiciary committee, and the committee on appropriations. both had jurisdiction over border patrol, custom, general services. i used all the jurisdictions to focus law and resources on the
9:03 pm
u.s. southwest border, along with my many colleagues at the time, including some not from border states like allen simpson and mark hatfield of oregon. we worked in a bipartisan effort. i participated as a member of the select committee and commission on immigration and refugee policy, along with my friend strom thurman, allen simpson, ted kennedy. the committee issued a report in 1981 which led to passage of comprehensive immigration reform bill during president reagan's administration. let me remind everyone, president reagan supported that bill, setting of a date to grandfather those in this country who were here illegal with a pathway to citizenship if they did not have a criminal record. i continue to work hard to see that this happens and occurs. many ask why our efforts did not work way back in 1981. there's an answer. we did not secure the borders, even though we passed
9:04 pm
comprehensive immigration reform. former senator pete domenici and i chaired the appropriations committee, and we constantly added earmarks, sorry to use that word here in this august body today, but we added money that was not in the budget, and often it was taken out for other reasons. the -- at that time the effort of congress and the public just wasn't there on this problem. when i left the senate, the number of border patrols had increased from approximately 4,000 to in '95, that's what it was, now it's well over 21,000, as the chairman points oust out, with over 5,000 on the arizona border. so those who say the federal government has not done its job in securing border security are wrong. i was in congress from '77 to '95, i can tell you, the federal government in recent years has made heroic efforts to secure our borders. it started under the previous administration, a republican
9:05 pm
administration, and continues now with such programs as secure communities. we are called here today to debate the merits, the constitutionality, of 1070. i believe it is unconstitutional, for many of the reasons the chairman pointed out, which i will not reiterate. having worked with law enforcement officers, much of my life, i know this law puts law enforcement in a tenable position. police officers are trained to profile behavior, behavior, not people. this law does the opposite. it profiles people. if you have brown skin in my state, you're going to be asked to prove your citizenship. the law has bad consequences. let me play a clip of an individual and it will tell you exactly what i'm talking about. this was taken just a few days after the bill passed both houses and right before the governor signed it. would you play the clip, please?
9:06 pm
>> divided our community. >> good evening, arizona. i'm patti kirkpatrick. the controversial illegal immigration bill isn't even law yet, but one valley couple says that didn't matter. the man claims he was targeted for his race and forced to provide his birth certificate. here's kirsten joyce with the story. >> reporter: good evening. the husband is a commercial truck driver, pulled over, as he says, at the 202 at a check stop. he was asked to show documents, he handed over his commercial vehicle's driver's license and provided a social security number. but apparently, according to him that wasn't enough. >> then he came and said, i need your birth certificate, and then i said, i said it's at my house. >> reporter: that's when officers handcuffed him, placing him in a van, transporting him to the immigration and customs
9:07 pm
enforcement building after central arizona. >> i can't imagine what he felt being put in the vehicle. people watching like he was some type of criminal. >> reporter: his wife jackie says she was contacted and told to retrieve his birth certificate. she asked the agent why her husband had been detained and was told -- >> because he didn't answer the questions correctly. he stated that, you know, his mother is in mexico currently, that's where she lives, and i asked them is it a crime for his mother to be in mexico. and said it's not, but he just thought it would be suspicious. >> reporter: she left work, drove an hour back to maricopa, where she retrieved his and her documents, just in case, showing us abdon was born in fresno, california. within 90 minutes of the time she walked up to the building abdon was released. relieved to be out of that building, the two of of them still remain baffled at the encounter. >> i don't think it's correct that i have to take my birth certificate with my all the times.
9:08 pm
i don't think that that's correct, you know? >> we can be stopped at any time and you have to show, bring the certificates with us and so forth, you know? it doesn't feel like it's a good way of life to live with fear, being stopped, even if we are okay, that we are legal here. we still have to carry our documents around. >> mr. chairman, thank you for taking extra time to look at that. this may have been unintended consequences, as they say, but this is what has happened in my state. this is not just one example that jumps out at you. let me just give you one more quick one. some statewide political leaders, county elected officials say that as a direct result of undocumented people coming into our state, horrific crimes have been caused such as beheadings in the desert of arizona along our border. trois are sneaking in. there's no proof to this. these examples turned out to be totally false, including those made by our governor who had to
9:09 pm
retract them about the beheadings found in the desert. but this demonstrates how political this issue has become. it's not about creating law enforcement solutions to secure our border from criminal or other deportation, those with criminal records. which this law, by the way is a minor percentage of those who commit the crimes here. i could go on and tell you a lot of different stories here, because i've talked to a lot of different people. and finally, let me ask -- let me ask, who is the target of 1070. senator durbin pointed out, if anyone tells you it is only the drug and gun trafficking criminals, they are mistaken. sb-1070 targets those with brown skin. and in my state, those are my neighbors, my friends, successful business associates, i've been in law enforcement and the united states senate when we could fix this law and we fixed
9:10 pm
part of it. and now, 1070 has really caused us a problem. as a legislator, i know, and law enforcement, that whenever you mix politics and law enforcement, you create a toxic environment. and that's what has happened to my state of arizona. thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for being longer than anticipated. >> no problem. thank you, senator. now we'll hear from senator gallardo. >> thank you. mr. chairman, members, for the record, my name is steve gallardo. i'm a state senator from arizona, representing district 13. it is my privilege to have the opportunity to give my perspective and experience regarding arizona's senate bill 1070. mr. chairman, members, senate bill 1070 has perpetuated a climate of fear and vision within the state of arizona. without any doubt, senate bill 1070 has done arizona and her
9:11 pm
people a great disservice and has done nothing to secure the borders or resolve any of our immigration problems. arizona law has unfortunately a subject latino citizens to racial profiling and harassment. the following situations will illustrate how senate bill 1070 has negatively affected the lives of many la teen knows latinos throughout the state of arizona. senate bill 1070 has created racial tension and distrust between latinos and law enforcement, as well as latinos and non-latino neighbors. i'll give you an example. the tragic death of juan rivela, a citizen murdered in front of his home by his neighbor 13 days after governor brewer signed senate bill 1070 into law. after the bill was signed into law, gary kelly yelled racial slurs, go back to mexico, if you don't go back to mexico, you're going to die. before long, gary kelly pointed
9:12 pm
his .38 revolver at juan barela and shot him in the face. mr. barela died in front of his home. he leaves a wife and a 13-year-old daughter. latinos are less likely to report crimes to local law enforcement, a fear of having themselves deported or a loved one deported. many latina women face nightmare situations if they are victims of domestic violence because of senate bill 1070, many of these women placed in a position where they cannot report their abuser in fear of getting deported. in some cases these women are held hostage in their own home. mr. chairman, members, no one woman, regardless of immigration status should ever be placed in harm's way. senate bill 1070 has shifted priorities of law enforcement to focus its attention away from the criminal investigation and placed squarely on local law enforcement immigration enforcement. this comes at the expense of
9:13 pm
rape, assault, murder victims. most recently the maricopa county sheriff's office has come under fire for their failure to investigate 400 sexual assault cases. many of these cases involve children. maricopa county sheriff's office focused their attention on immigration enforcement. senate bill 1070 and laws like it fostered and legitimize the vigilante movements responseable for lethal attacks on latinos. here's another example. the case of a 9-year-old flores and her four raul were killed by the hands of shawna ford and jason bush, all members of the minutemen defense organization in arizona. the florezes were murdered in their own home as being robbed. she was 9 when she pleaded for help and shot dead at her home.
9:14 pm
if senate bill 1070 has been successful in anything, mr. chairman, it has been successful in breaking up the families by separating hard, working immigrant parents from their children and limiting the success of our latino students. these parents and children live in fear every day. fear of being separated from each other. it is common practice for parents to teach their children a phone number of a family member that they can trust in the event that the parents get socked away in one of sheriff arpaio's raids in phoenix. mr. chairman, members, the state of arizona has dealt with a lot of anti-immigration type legislation. the most recent was a ballot initiative that preceded senate bill 1070 requiring undocumented students to pay out-of-state tuition. the dream act has been exactly that, only a dream. i use my karl hayden high school
9:15 pm
robotics team in my district, a source of pride in my legislative district, a school team that has beaten teams all over the world, including the massachusetts institute of technology. if it wasn't for their immigration status, these students would have unlimited unfortunately, laws like senate bill 1070 pander to a climate of fear and division that run rampant through the state of arizona. mr. chairman, this fear is created for a purpose. mr. chairman, members, i would submit to you that senate bill 1070's true intentions is primarily objective to make second-class citizen of u.s. latinos to discourage them from voting, from going to school, seeking employment, and realizing the american dream. immigration enforcement is only secondary objective by their own admissions, the authors and sponsors of senate bill 1070 intend to harass immigrants, to create a hostile and
9:16 pm
miserable environment so that immigrants themselves would choose to self-deport. they show no regards to the civil rights abuse of u.s.-latino citizens. this by its very nature defines their strategy as reckless and abusive. senate bill 1070 is neither an immigration policy nor a legal position, but rather a campaign of harassment, intimidation, directly solely on the person's complexion. finally, the prime sponsor of senate bill 1070 will try to give you some rational for the chaos of this legislation. however, i would submit to you that any effort to justify profiling, harassment or oppression of anyone is unamerican, illegal, and unconstitutional on its face. mr. chairman, members, i would pray to see the wisdom of passing legislation preempting states from addressing and enforcing immigration laws and put emphasis on passing
9:17 pm
comprehensive immigration reform specifically the priority of passing a dream act for the students not only in the state of arizona, but across this great country. mr. chairman, members, these are my comments. i respectfully submit them. >> thank you, senator gallardo. mr. landfried, you may proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for inviting me to speak today. for the record, my name is todd landfried, and i'm the executive director of arizona employers for immigration reform. azer, as we refer to ourselves, was formed in twech and has approximately 400 small, medium and large business members. we are not open borders pro-illegal business addicted to cheap labor nor put profits before patriotism. we know there are serious problems on the border and people's lives are being affected, and the issue needs to be addressed. businesses want legal and efficient access to the labor it needs when it needs it from wherever it must come from with little government interference or interaction as possible. most importantly, we want you in
9:18 pm
congress to solve the problem. my remarks will focus on whether laws like arizona's sb-1070 and others are good public policy based upon their impacts on business and the economy. what are the outcomes? do they secure the border? do they create jobs and reduce state expenses? do they fulfill their promises? it's a legitimate question. especially at a time when program accountability is so important. what's wrong with holding state level immigration laws to the same scrutiny? in my written testimony, i've shown this attrition through enforcement scheme has been tried before at the city, county, and state level going back to 2006. what has come from these past attempts? the short answer, nothing good, unless your only goal is to make brown people move. after oklahoma passed hb-2004, the bankers association found the loss of 90,000 families $1.9 billion loss to the state's gross state product.
9:19 pm
the urban institute and the migration policy institute found negligible savings on oklahoma public services from the departure of the undocumented because they're ineligible for those benefits in the first place. a georgia restaurant association survey found november 2011, 71% of members had labor shortages and estimates the average monthly sales loss due to the shortage $21,000 per store. georgia farmers told their governor they needed 11,000 workers to bring in that spring's fruit crop. governor deal offers up probationers as a solution on the first day 11 showed up. a week later there was seven left. the losses of the farmers encountered in 2011 was an estimated $391 million. one analyst said we have turned good workers into criminals and turned criminals into bad workers, lose on both ends of the deal. exactly. alabama is rethinking hb-56. 25% of alabama's construction
9:20 pm
workers have left the states with few replacements. towns report revenue losses exceeding $8.5 million. statewide loss and income tax collections are estimated between $56 million and $264 million. arizona continues to suffer. total losses from cancellations and books for conferences and tourism were $394 million at a loss of 424,236 jobs there is a chart in the back of my written testimony that highlights those losses. foreign businesses and executives refuse to work in arizona. the loss of consumers from the arizona economy resulted in an estimated decline in gross domestic product of 9.6%. a loss of 291,000 direct and indirect jobs and a result in tax revenue of $2.1 billion. do these sound like the effects of a good law? we were told sb 1070 would bolster the economy and create
9:21 pm
jobs, yet history convincingly demonstrates exactly the opposite. if these laws are so good, then why are the impacts so bad? the answer is you had bad outcomes because you had bad inputs. put bluntly, we're being misled by proponents that routinely distort data, cherry pick statistics, and in many instances make it all up. you heard testimony about how it supposedly costs arizona $2.6 billion to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens. the problem is that isn't the whole story as it ignores financial contributions these workers make to the economy. economic studies that consider both sides of the ledger show that immigrants earn a net benefit to arizona of just under $1 billion. you've heard 17% of arizona's prison prisons are illegal aliens when it's impossible to know. why? because it's combines those unauthorized with those here legally. the latest number is 13.2%. therefore, the undocumented
9:22 pm
population must be lower. we're told because of sb-1070, crime in phoenix is at a 30-year low, yet there are no data from phoenix pd, the department of public safety or the fbi to back that up. that fact was reiterated in this morning's arizona republic. mr. chairman, nearly every statistic used to justify sb-1070 has serious factual problems wit. newspaper fact check researchers found nine out of ten immigration statements they checked, including some you heard today are not the whole truth. i would encourage you to take a look at the four plus gigabytes of reports and data on the dvd i provided to the committee and educate yourself on the real facts. i'm not saying all the concerns are legitimate. i'm not saying there are no costs. no one questions the serious issues of drugs and smuggling on the board. no one questions the security threats. no one deny there's is an immigration problem. we can bring on all of this. but shouldn't we spend our time looking at solutions that might work, rather than on one we know that doesn't?
9:23 pm
23 i don't want to ask a question, should it be what else you got. it amazing me that sb 1070 was the best idea they could come up with. maybe because no other solutions were allowed to be heard and discussed. fortunately, there is some great ideas for solving this problem, but you don't get to hear them because we're spending too much time arguing about sb 1070. we'll discuss some of them at 10:00 a.m. we invited all members of congress. we hope your staff will attend. this continued fixation on sb 1070 as some kind of viable solution when we know better is crazy. the supreme court's decision will do nothing to change the fact that it remains be a policy and bad law. congress must do something about that, and you shouldn't waste any time getting started. that must deal with the command for labor as well as the tame time border security. nothing else will work. thank you for your time. >> thank you, mr. landfried.
9:24 pm
let me think all of our panelists for testimony. we'll begin with questions. i'll direct questions to you first, mr. pearce, and thank you for coming. we don't agree, that's obvious. but you've had the courage and integrity to come here and defend your views. and that's very much appreciated. okay. i'm interested in trying to understand the general context behind the arizona law. you were on fox news on january 2010. you said your intent in writing sb-1070 was, quote, to take the handcuffs off law enforcement. they'll go home. they'll self-deport, unquote. do you still stand by that statement? >> yes, sir. >> okay. some have said that the arizona law is necessary because the federal government has not secured the border. but to be clear, even if the border were completely secure and the government should co.
9:25 pm
show that no new people are entering the country illegally, you would still want sb-1070 to remain in effect to ensure all of those who are already here without status either leave america or get apprehend order deported. is that correct? >> mr. chairman, can i give better than just a question yes? >> yes. it's simply the rule of law. we have all kinds of laws. you're never going to get 100% compliance. we understand that. but laws without consequences are not laws at all. and i've heard some misinformation here today that is more than disappointing. if everybody remembered the case miller were newnan in 2005, a landmark decision by the united states supreme court that struck down a prior decision by the ninth circuit court about 4th and 14th amendments of those who are here illegally and when you can ask and when you can't. they struck down and you can ask any time. the supreme court has upheld you can ask any time. in sb-1070, we prohibit racial profiling.
9:26 pm
in sb--1070, we say you have to have a legitimate contract. you have to have reasonable suspicion. those are the things town in a police academy to every young recruit, civil rights. the proper respect and decorum of our citizens and those we come in contact with. i find it very demeaning to law enforcement that we would assume. you're always going to have exceptions to every law when you have thousands and thousands of arrests, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> but that is demeaning to our law enforcement community to make that. if i might, sir. when you talk about the police chiefs not supporting sb-1070, those that are appointed bureaucrats from open border mayors in most cases, what did support is nine out of 15 sheriffs. arizona cops, 6,000 officers, the fop, every single organization represents boots on the ground supported sb-1070 and
9:27 pm
worked with me to make sure that we created the kind of expectations that they could make when doing their job necessary. it is the rule of law, mirrors federal law. we didn't regulate. that is an exclusive, exclusive responsibility of the federal government. and i agree with you, mr. chairman on that. but enforcement has never been the exclusive responsibility. we don't hear this about drug laws. we don't hear this about gun laws. we don't hear this about bank robbery or the other federal crimes that we enforce on a daily basis. states have always had. had congress want to preempt the states from forcing the law, they would have used their plenary powers. they have never done that. there has never been a preem preemption. the rule of law, dignified, compassionate, respectful, but not apologetic for enforcing our
9:28 pm
laws and securing our border. >> i respect that. i want to give you a chance to state your whole case because you're outnumbered here. >> it's usually the case, mr. chairman. >> i appreciate you being here. i do want to ask the question again, just if you could give me a yes or no answer. if 2 border were completely secure, and the government could show no new people were crossing the border, you would still want sb-1070 to remain in effect so that the people who are already here without status would leave or be apprehend and deported. that right? >> i don't mean to be difficult. >> just give me your answer to that question. it doesn't have to be yes or no. >> let me give you the answer. we're a generous nation. we allow more people in this country than every other developed nation combined legally. but yes, the number must be enforced. with that number you talk about, there ought to still be arrests and deportations. the largest gangs in this country are made up of illegal aliens. the terrorists, kidnappers, human smugglers, the drug
9:29 pm
smugglers, can't ignore. you can't just carve out a little section when you do these things. >> i appreciate that, but your answer is yes. >> yes. >> okay. in trying to promote self-deportation, do you make any distinctions if the person's been in america for 20 years or has u.s. citizen children or is brought here as a minor through no fault of their own? the law does not make any distinctions among those type of people, right, or between -- >> mr. chairman, the federal law doesn't make any distinction. that's a regulatory function, not a function of the states. >> okay. next question. do you believe that many national political leaders agree with your policy of self-deportation or do you think you have a minority view here, even within your own party? >> mr. chairman, i have a majority view. sb-1070 is supported by 2-1 from coast to coast across this nation. they originally passed 73%, rasmussen poll, 73% of arizonans supported sb-1070. it is still, by far, the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on